About This Show

Listen Whenever

Related Shows

Most Recent Episode

In Praise of Identity Politics (EP.52)

< 1 day ago
·
10 minutes

Summary
The increasing controversy about Identity Politics, groups of people identified by gender, ethnicity, etc., and Intersectionality, urging those identified groups to band together against oppressors (usually identified as white males), entirely misses the point. Use different criteria to define these groups, and everything works.
Links and References
The Dinner Table
“God Helps Those…”
Young, Poor and Angry
Contact
Please do reach out with comments or questions. You can email me at will@resultswithreason.com, or connect with me on Twitter, Facebook, and LinkedIn.
And you can subscribe to the podcast on your favorite device through Apple Podcasts, Google, or Stitcher.
Transcript
The increasing controversy about Identity Politics, groups of people identified by gender, ethnicity, etc., and Intersectionality, urging those identified groups to band together against oppressors (usually identified as white males), is capturing an increasing amount of attention. But if we use different criteria to define these groups, the controversy goes away, everything works.
Let’s start with why we would define and put people into groups in the first place. What is the goal? At the moment, all the groups that people are making various arguments either for or against, are groups that no one chose to belong to. These are groups that people became a part of at birth. Ethnicity and sex are at the core of the push to put people into various identity groups and then pit them against one another. I used the phrase “pit them against one another” because it is clear to anyone that this is exactly what is going on. Here’s the process: Create identity groups, tell people which groups(s) they belong to, tell them who their enemies are, then encourage them to have at in the name of justice. Oh, and along the way be sure to rank various identity groups along on righteous scale that pretends to measure levels of disadvantage, levels of victimization. For example, a black man would not rate to be as high on this identity group ranking chart as a black transgendered male.
What is the goal for those who define identity groups in this way? All identity politics based on inherent characteristics have negative and self-serving goals. Slavery was an example of identity politics based on an inherent characteristic--ethnicity. Slavery positioned whites as being superior to blacks. Today’s version of identity politics is trying to portray whites as being inferior, and masking their inferiority with oppression.
But, Will, the title of this podcast is “Praising Identity Politics.” Where’s the praise? Ah, good question; the praise is for identity groups chosen not on inherent characteristics, but groupings based on how we think and how we choose to go about our lives. Let’s look at some examples of groups who go about their day with positive thinking and living, e.g., those who:
Have an educational commitment, be it a GED, or a PhD in French Literature. GED or PhD; doesn't matter, the key is the commitment.
Respect authority.
Believe in both the efficacy and nobility of consistent hard work.
Practice personal responsibility; whatever it takes.
Are their Brother’s Keepers.
Now, let’s look at some groups where negative thinking and lifestyles have taken over, e.g., those who:
See themselves as entitled, either through victimhood or simply because they deserve it.
View entry-level jobs and entry-level pay as beneath them.
Resist authority at almost any level.
Feel that tasks like doing homework and working hard are for chumps.
Filter everything by examining whether or not it is good for themselves.
These two sets, groups of groups if you will; the ones who “get it” in their thinking and in how they choose to live their lives, and the ones who don’t, are not separate and apart from each other. This is not about “haves” and “havenots.” The link between the groups is the Brother’s Keepers choice that is ...Read more »

Summary
The increasing controversy about Identity Politics, groups of people identified by gender, ethnicity, etc., and Intersectionality, urging those identified groups to band together against oppressors (usually identified as white males), entirely misses the point. Use different criteria to define these groups, and everything works.
Links and References
The Dinner Table
“God Helps Those…”
Young, Poor and Angry
Contact
Please do reach out with comments or questions. You can email me at will@resultswithreason.com, or connect with me on Twitter, Facebook, and LinkedIn.
And you can subscribe to the podcast on your favorite device through Apple Podcasts, Google, or Stitcher.
Transcript
The increasing controversy about Identity Politics, groups of people identified by gender, ethnicity, etc., and Intersectionality, urging those identified groups to band together against oppressors (usually identified as white males), is capturing an increasing amount of attention. But if we use different criteria to define these groups, the controversy goes away, everything works.
Let’s start with why we would define and put people into groups in the first place. What is the goal? At the moment, all the groups that people are making various arguments either for or against, are groups that no one chose to belong to. These are groups that people became a part of at birth. Ethnicity and sex are at the core of the push to put people into various identity groups and then pit them against one another. I used the phrase “pit them against one another” because it is clear to anyone that this is exactly what is going on. Here’s the process: Create identity groups, tell people which groups(s) they belong to, tell them who their enemies are, then encourage them to have at in the name of justice. Oh, and along the way be sure to rank various identity groups along on righteous scale that pretends to measure levels of disadvantage, levels of victimization. For example, a black man would not rate to be as high on this identity group ranking chart as a black transgendered male.
What is the goal for those who define identity groups in this way? All identity politics based on inherent characteristics have negative and self-serving goals. Slavery was an example of identity politics based on an inherent characteristic--ethnicity. Slavery positioned whites as being superior to blacks. Today’s version of identity politics is trying to portray whites as being inferior, and masking their inferiority with oppression.
But, Will, the title of this podcast is “Praising Identity Politics.” Where’s the praise? Ah, good question; the praise is for identity groups chosen not on inherent characteristics, but groupings based on how we think and how we choose to go about our lives. Let’s look at some examples of groups who go about their day with positive thinking and living, e.g., those who:
Have an educational commitment, be it a GED, or a PhD in French Literature. GED or PhD; doesn't matter, the key is the commitment.
Respect authority.
Believe in both the efficacy and nobility of consistent hard work.
Practice personal responsibility; whatever it takes.
Are their Brother’s Keepers.
Now, let’s look at some groups where negative thinking and lifestyles have taken over, e.g., those who:
See themselves as entitled, either through victimhood or simply because they deserve it.
View entry-level jobs and entry-level pay as beneath them.
Resist authority at almost any level.
Feel that tasks like doing homework and working hard are for chumps.
Filter everything by examining whether or not it is good for themselves.
These two sets, groups of groups if you will; the ones who “get it” in their thinking and in how they choose to live their lives, and the ones who don’t, are not separate and apart from each other. This is not about “haves” and “havenots.” The link between the groups is the Brother’s Keepers choice that is ...Read Less